Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!cogsci!norman From: norman@cogsci.EDU (Donald A Norman-UCSD Cog Sci Dept) Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng Subject: Of Mice and Autos Message-ID: <60@cogsci.EDU> Date: 24 Dec 89 16:55:46 GMT References: <172@comcon.UUCP> <7326@ficc.uu.net> <9320@hoptoad.uucp> <1989Dec18.081450.28019@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu> <461@uwslh.UUCP> <7787@cognos.UUCP> Reply-To: norman@cogsci (Donald A Norman-UCSD Cog Sci Dept) Followup-To: comp.cog-eng Organization: UC San Diego Department of Cognitive Science Lines: 117 This note is inspired by the repeating of Bill Buxton's observations of the complexity of the auto interface, but with what I thought was exactly the wrong conclusion (that the complexity of autos is easily learned and OK, so why should we be so concerned about a few buttons on a mouse). Let's not get carried away with the apparent ease of use of automobiles and other household goods. People have severe problems with them. The auto works only because: 1. The critical control number about 6 (gas pedal, brake, steering, shift lever, and lights. Plus knowing where to insert the key and how to start the car.) (Manual transmission adds one more, but remember why we have automatics -- many people never comfortably manage to synchronize brake, gas, clutch, gear lever and turning, signalling, and driving). 2. The other controls DO cause great confusion and difficulty. Many people complain to me (because I collect these things) that they make errors and are <> frustrated by failure to find the horns, turn signals, windshield wipers (and washers), or to figure out how to work the (electric) windows, radios, heater, air conditioner, etc. Especially at high speed while driving. And I haven't even touched upon the cruise control yet. 3. With the computer, we need to use the minor controls and functions repeatedly and as part of the actions toward our goal. With the auto, all these other items are secondary, and although they do cause frustration, they are not required for the primary goal and so if we do have trouble, we can still go from point A to B, which is the goal. 4. Moreover, it takes a few months to learn to drive a car safely, about a year to feel comfortable. I rent automobiles tens of times a year, and I consider myself lucky if I can learn how to find a decent radio station on the radio. I often can't find the horn and I almost never can learn to set the clock correctly. Driving is so complex that we have special schools to teach it, special license exams, and special police to enforce the procedures. With road signs and markers (you couldn't drive safely without the white line down the middle of the highway). A large industry exists to keep driving within acceptably safe parameters (see item 5), 5. And, unlike computer interfaces, we accept 40,000 + deaths /year (in the US alone), plus hundreds of thousands of injuries. Each year. None of this was Bill Buxton's fault: he was being quoted, and unfairly I think. Buxton also has a nice story about the weirdness and lack of standards of the first automobiles. Go to a car museum and look. And for your holiday amusement, I append his story. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is a note I got from Thomas Erickson (of Apple), on Bill Buxton's observations on early auto interfaces (written while Bill was in Cambridge, England, working for Xerox EuroParc -- he is now at Toronto). Unindented material is from Erickson: indented from Buxton: Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 11:04:20 PST From: Tom Erickson Subject: auto quote Interface Design, 1884-1904. Bill Buxton writes: On a number of occasions, I've heard speakers compare the operation of computers unfavorably to that of automobiles. "Why," they ask, "can't we design computers like cars, where one can move from one to the other, despite different manufacturers, and still be able to drive?" The line of argument usually proceeds along lines like, "What if cars were designed the way computer user interfaces are? What if the clutch was on the right foot and the accelerator on the left?" etc., leaving visions of death, destruction and all kinds of havoc on the highway, and by implication, on the computer-way. Buxton then goes on to describe his attendance at the finish of the London-Brighton [antique] car race, and his discovery that early automobiles (1884-1904) were designed much like current user interfaces. The programme of the race provides more detail: "The driver of an early Lanchester, for example,steers it by laying his right arm along a side-lever, while his right hand flashes from vapour regulator (mixture control) to petrol pump to compound gear trigger, between two engine governor levers and two gear levers, one of which is always a brake. His left foot operates the accelerator and his right foot is merely used to blow the horn, by stamping hard on a floor-mounted rubber bulb. By contrast, the Locomobile steam car has a transverse steering lever which is gripped in the left hand. The right hand operates the throttle lever, the link-motion control lever, the water-feed bypass lever, and all the mysterious stopcocks associated with steam power. Like the Lanchester, the early Delahaye had an accelerator pedal on the left, but you pressed it to slow down and released it to go faster; not much chance of catching that one if you happened to fall out. On the popular little Dion Bouton, the left pedal is not only a decelerator but also a transmission brake, and the right pedal (operated with the heel) engages the reverse. The Brotherhood-Crocker had a flanged accelerator pedal, because it was controlled by swiveling the foot from side to side, instead of up and down. And Denmarks pioneering car, the remarkable Hammel, turned left when the steering wheel was turned to the right, and vice-versa, so your Hammel driver wore an earnest, rather worried expression at all times." This sheds some light on why early market researchers predicted that the American demand for cars would peak at one million because of a limitation in the number of available chauffeurs. End of quoted section ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I am glad that we don't make computers as complex as the modern auto. Don Norman INTERNET: dnorman@ucsd.edu Department of Cognitive Science D-015 BITNET: dnorman@ucsd University of California, San Diego AppleLink: d.norman La Jolla, California 92093 USA FAX: (619) 534-1128